President Eye Candy Visits 'The View'

Via Theo Spark:

Harsh Reality Hits California's Community Colleges

I shared my thoughts earlier on the declining support for Governor Jerry Brown's multi-billion dollar tax initiative on the November ballot. If the measure fails, the state's public education establishment's going to face another round of cuts, and they're starting to get down to the bone now. Long-cherished programs will be slashed --- and the long-employed faculty members who run them will be laid off. There's a lot of reasons for this, but one big one is poor leadership, especially among the state's Democrats who're beholden to the teachers' unions, and who haven't worked to rationalize state budgets and adapt to changing fiscal times. It's an old story that I've written about frequently.

In any case, here's this report from the Los Angeles Times from last week, "FADING DREAMS: California's community colleges staggering during hard times":

Marianet Tirado returned to Los Angeles Trade Tech community college this fall, optimistic that she would get into the classes she needs to transfer to a four-year university.

Of the courses she wanted, only two had space left when she registered in May. She enrolled in those and "crashed" others. In one of those cases, she lucked out when the professor teaching a political science class admitted additional students. But she couldn't get into a biology class because she was too far down on the waiting list.

If the math and English courses she needs aren't offered next spring, she may have to push back her plans to apply to San Francisco State, UCLA or USC.

Photos:  Community college conundrum

Her mother is puzzled that Tirado may spend three or four years at what is supposed to be a two-year college.

"Because that's what we think community college is," said Tirado, 24, a journalism major who lives in Watts. "It's hard to explain to my mom that I'm trying to go to school but the courses are not there."

This is the new reality for Tirado and about 2.4 million other students in the nation's largest community college system. The system is the workhorse of California's 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education, which promised affordability, quality and access to all.

Graphic:  Tough times

In reality, the state's two-year colleges are buckling under the stress of funding cuts, increased demand and a weak record of student success.

The situation can be seen on all 112 campuses — students on long waiting lists, those who take years to graduate or transfer and others so frustrated that they drop out. Most of them enter ill-prepared for college-level work. Eighty-five percent need remedial English, 73% remedial math. Only about a third of remedial students transfer to a four-year school or graduate with a community college associate's degree.

"We're at the breaking point," said Jack Scott, who served as chancellor of the California Community College system for three years until retiring this month.

"It's like a nice-looking car you've been driving for several years: It looks shiny, but the engine is falling apart," said Eloy Ortiz Oakley, president of Long Beach City College. "The wheels fell off the Master Plan 20 or 30 years ago. We're finally feeling the results because we have enormous needs for our educational system to produce qualified workers, and we're playing catch-up now."

The consequences of not meeting those demands are huge: About 80% of firefighters and law enforcement officers and 70% of nurses embarked on their careers in community college. By some estimates, California will need 2.3 million more community college degree and certificate holders by 2025 to meet the demands of employers.

More at that top link.

And note that my college president, Eloy Oakley, is quoted at the article. He's a hatchet man, and his administration brought in another hatchet man, Dr. Gaither Loewenstein, to help cut loose faculty and staff to save enough money to keep up with paying the college's bloated administration costs and wasteful perks, like the rarely-attended athletic programs. That's not the image you'll hear from top college officials, but then again, they're the ones with decisive power over the narrative and policy outcomes. The Long Beach Post has an article on what's coming down the pipeline. See, "LBCC Says Program Cuts Necessary As State Resources Shift."

And back over at the Times, readers respond in the letters to the editor, "Letters: Community colleges -- in a fix, but fixable":

The community college situation gets tricky as the traditional enrollment increase during an economic downturn has gotten crushed by the state's budget woes. California's 2.4 million community college students are a state unto themselves.

The state's economic mismanagement, complete with upcoming pass-me-or-else propositions, is an albatross around the neck. Additionally, funding is intertwined with K-12 education, and community colleges get pushed to the bottom (see 2008's failed Proposition 92).

The biggest deficiency in the system is its inability to use the brainpower and helpfulness of the people at the individual schools in crafting solutions. Figure out a way to harness them and the system will thrive.

Mason Malugeon
Huntington Beach

*****

According to the article, 85% of community college students need remedial work in English, and 73% need remedial math. This is a reflection of the failure of California's K-12 schools.

Standardized tests should indicate a student's progress in math and English over time and should be used to evaluate teachers and students. Any system that uses test scores to evaluate teachers should also include a way to asses student motivation (which is partly determined by a teacher) and improvement over prior years' results.

Overlooking the K-12 system is terribly shortsighted.

Frank E. Drsata
Huntington Beach

There's another letter-writer at the link, but her solution is privatization, which is Utopian, for one thing, and is simply not going to fly in blue-state California.

But I've highlighted the key passages from the second and third letter-writers. Faculty don't have input in ultimate decisions on fiscal policies and program termination. And even in other matters of the curriculum, outside forces push trends on the colleges that might not be beneficial to students in the end (student learning outcomes and assessment is a fad, for example, drawn from the standardized test movement, that's being implemented at the class level at my college this term, and they'll have absolutely no impact on how well my students do in classes or how well or quickly they'll be able to complete their coursework).

And while I agree with the last writer, Mr. Drsata, in addition to the issues at the K-12 level, the overriding concern is --- and should be --- the culture of learning at the family level. School districts like Irvine Unified --- where my kids attend --- send large numbers of students to the top universities, and the schools routinely rank among the best in the state, largely because the demographics include not just more affluent families, but many from groups that place high emphasis on academic achievement. It's not politically correct to say it, but those large numbers of students needing remedial classes at the community colleges are predominantly blacks and Hispanics. Other groups, whites and Asians, also have remedial issues, but their numbers are much smaller. The student population's frankly almost half Hispanic at my college at this point. And the greater Long Beach area has a large number of students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds. These trends will continue as long as socio-economic inequality remains a major dividing line in the larger American society. For folks to do well in this environment, it's going to be up to the individual families to pull themselves up, to pass on a culture of learning and achievement to their children, because public resources will be strained for years while the U.S. and state economies continue to pull out of the long Obama Depression. Families can't just blame the schools for poor outcomes.

I'll have more on these issues as we move forward. And I especially hope for good news to report, but again, if the tax initiative fails at the polls, it'll be more cuts up front. It could easily be a decade until the state gets back to a fiscal environment where massive public funding can be devoted to restoring the education system to the status and stature that it enjoyed in earlier decades. I think that's possible, but it will take rationalizing services, along with changing some of the entitlement elements that have driven public expectations in the past. The community colleges are the weakest institution in all of California's educational sectors, so some of the final changes will be greatest at this level. I don't know, but the state ultimately may not be able to guarantee everyone a place in community college classrooms. It's too bad, but it's not as if it's not happening already.

Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, 1926-2012

I can't find the entry now, but a few days back Walter Russell Mead noted that for all its faults, the New York Times remains the country's best newspaper for serious news reporting. And as my readers know, while I often flail away angrily at the Times' horribly biased reporting, I keep returning each and every day to read all the news that's over there, arguably "all the news that's fit to print," in the words of the paper's longstanding slogan.

In any case, I guess this makes the news of the passing of Arthur Sulzberger a bit more interesting and sad.

The obituary is here, "Publisher Who Transformed The Times for New Era":

Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, who guided The New York Times and its parent company through a long, sometimes turbulent period of expansion and change on a scale not seen since the newspaper’s founding in 1851, died early Saturday at his home in Southampton, N.Y. He was 86.

His death, after a long illness, was announced by his family.

Mr. Sulzberger’s tenure, as publisher of the newspaper and as chairman and chief executive of The New York Times Company, reached across 34 years, from the heyday of postwar America to the twilight of the 20th century, from the era of hot lead and Linotype machines to the birth of the digital world.

The paper he took over as publisher in 1963 was the paper it had been for decades: respected and influential, often setting the national agenda. But it was also in precarious financial condition and somewhat insular, having been a tightly held family operation since 1896, when it was bought by his grandfather Adolph S. Ochs.

By the 1990s, when Mr. Sulzberger passed the reins to his son, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., first as publisher in 1992 and then as chairman in 1997, the enterprise had been transformed. The Times was now national in scope, distributed from coast to coast, and it had become the heart of a diversified, multibillion-dollar media operation that came to encompass newspapers, magazines, television and radio stations and online ventures.

The expansion reflected Mr. Sulzberger’s belief that a news organization, above all, had to be profitable if it hoped to maintain a vibrant, independent voice. As John F. Akers, a retired chairman of I.B.M. and for many years a Times Company board member, put it, “Making money so that you could continue to do good journalism was always a fundamental part of the thinking.”

Continue reading.

Bret Baier Special Report: Evolving Narrative Over Benghazi Attack and Cover-Up

It's devastating. An absolutely devastating account.

Plus, at London's Daily Mail, "They DID know: Now White House admits they knew 'within 24 hours' that Al Qaeda was behind Libya attacks despite confusing public statements." (At Memorandum.)

Lacey Banghard Never-Ending L.A. Summer

An amazing woman, at Egotastic!, "Thank God It’s Funbags! Lacey Banghard Takes Off Her Swimsuit to Celebrate the Neverending L.A. Summer."

Canadian Held at Guantánamo Bay Is Repatriated

It's Omar Khadr, an al-Qaeda terrorist captured in Afghanistan in 2002.

The New York Times reports, "Sole Canadian Held at Guantánamo Bay Is Repatriated":

Born in Toronto, Mr. Khadr was mainly raised in Pakistan and Afghanistan by his father, Ahmed Said Khadr, who emigrated to Canada in 1977 from Egypt and eventually became a Canadian citizen. American and Canadian intelligence services identified him as a senior member of Al Qaeda. About a year after Omar Khadr’s capture, Ahmed Khadr was killed by Pakistani forces near the border with Afghanistan.

Omar Khadr’s mother, Maha, and his sister Zaynab lived on and off in Canada. In 2004, they provoked a sharp public reaction after appearing in a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation documentary about the family and seemed to condone the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and condemned Canadian social values. They briefly operated a blog that also contained provocative remarks.

F-king raghead terrorist, the kid became of symbol of "human rights" violations while held at Gitmo. BCF has more, "Khadr Back in Canada."

He could get parole in Canada as early as next year.

More at Atlas Shrugs, "GITMO jihad killer Omar Khadr repatriated to Canada after White House pressure for release #Savage." (At Memeorandum.)

#ProudSavage: Mona Eltahawy Gone Mad!

Epic lulz at Atlas Shrugs, "Moe Moe Moe Moe Moe-nuh!"

Plus, "#ProudSavage Mona Eltahawy Defends Jihad Massacres of Innocent Civilians."

More from Anne Sorock at Legal Insurrection, "MTA changes ad rules and rewards Eltahawy stunt."

PREVIOUSLY: "Pamela Geller's 'Savage' Aren't Being Taken Down."

Voters May Reject California's Proposition 32

It's the big payroll protection initiative, which I'd love to see passing in November. But it's a hard sell, since the measure is deceptive. It indeed appears to contain major loopholes for big business, and is hence seen as punitive and unfair.

At the Los Angeles Times, "California voters leaning against campaign finance initiative":

SACRAMENTO — California voters appear poised to reject a November ballot measure that would ban political contributions by payroll deduction, according to a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll.

Forty-four percent of those surveyed said they opposed Proposition 32, which would eliminate the main fundraising tool of unions. Just 36% said they supported the measure, which would also bar corporations and unions from contributing directly to candidates.

Proponents of the measure, having focused squarely on unions in two past attempts to end paycheck deductions for political purposes, adopted the language of the Occupy Wall Street movement this time around and rebranded their campaign as an effort to curb the power of special interests.

An ad touting the measure says it would "cut the money tie between special interests, lobbyists and career politicians" and "put people back in charge." The supporters' core argument is that the initiative would apply "evenhandedly, without exception," to corporations and unions.

Campaign finance experts disagree, saying the measure would disproportionately hobble organized labor by prohibiting payroll deductions to collect campaign cash. Corporations, they say, rarely use such a method to raise political money, instead tapping executive checkbooks and company treasuries.

The labor-backed opposition campaign has hit on that theme, airing radio and TV ads for more than a month that paint the measure as a deceptive corporate power grab, complete with exemptions for business. So far, unions have raised more than $43.4 million to defeat Proposition 32, which is being bankrolled by Republican donors, conservative activists and business executives.

As a result, proponents "aren't able to convince voters this is a clean-government, stop-special-interests initiative," said Dave Kanevsky of the Republican polling firm American Viewpoint, which conducted the survey in conjunction with the Democratic company Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.

Indeed, when respondents heard arguments for and against the measure — supporters saying it would end influence peddling and opponents calling it phony campaign finance reform — opposition grew, with 48% saying they would vote against the initiative. Only 36% said they would vote for it.

"People are ready to believe that … corporations are spending this money to rig the system more for them," said Stan Greenberg, the Democratic pollster.

PREVIOUSLY: "Support Dwindles for Proposition 30's Multi-Billion Dollar Tax Hike."

Support Dwindles for Proposition 30's Multi-Billion Dollar Tax Hike

A majority still favors the initiative, according to the Los Angeles Times poll out this week. But support has declined as folks take a look at the measure, with concerns especially about waste and abuse in spending. The buzz at my college is abject alarm, since a failure to pass the law will result in massive cuts to programs. The administration has an entire slate of vocational programs, and so forth, that are scheduled to get the ax next year. And that's going to entail full-time tenured layoffs, which is frightening to anyone who's employed at the community colleges. There's little danger to core general education programs, like political science, so rest assured dear readers, your humble blogger is quite safe (and I've got seniority as well, which is another layer of protection from layoffs). But there's no telling what could happen ultimately. It's not clear how the state's public education system can continue without massive reforms, from top to bottom, including revisiting historic guarantees to universal access to all education-ready Californians.

See LAT, "Support slips for Brown's tax hike":

SACRAMENTO — Support for Gov. Jerry Brown's plan for billions of dollars in tax hikes on the November ballot is slipping amid public anxiety about how politicians spend money, but voters still favor the proposal, according to a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll.

The findings suggest that voters are leery of sending more cash to Sacramento in the wake of a financial scandal at the parks department, spiraling costs for a multibillion-dollar high-speed rail project to connect Northern and Southern California and ill-timed legislative pay raises.

Brown's measure would temporarily raise income tax rates on high earners for seven years and boost the state sales tax by a quarter-cent for four years in a bid to avoid steep cuts in funds for schools and other programs.

Fifty-five percent of registered voters say that they back such an increase, a drop from May, when 59% of voters supported it. The new poll shows 36% of voters opposed, with the remainder undecided.

Views swing widely by political affiliation. Among Democrats, 72% favor the proposal. Only 27% of Republican voters support it. Sixty-three percent of independent voters approve.

An intense opposition campaign could derail the governor's initiative, Proposition 30. Support drops to 48% when voters are presented with arguments they might hear before the Nov. 6 election. Foes of the measure say, for example, that government wastes too much of the money it already has.

"An ongoing debate can make this very close," said Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, one of two firms that conducted the bipartisan poll. The other company, American Viewpoint, is a Republican concern.

The USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Los Angeles Times poll surveyed 1,504 registered voters by telephone from Sept. 17 to Sept. 23. The margin of error is 2.9 percentage points.

Brown, whose approval rating has dipped 3 points since May to 46%, has said the state needs new taxes because budget cuts alone won't solve its financial problems. He's counting on voters like Gerardine Gauch to turn out on election day.

The 60-year-old prison psychologist from Monterey County said California is facing the hard reality that it's no longer a sun-splashed land "where everything goes fine forever."

"When you're growing up, you have to choose what's valuable and what's not," said Gauch, a Democrat. "And you have to pay for what's valuable."

Others are skeptical of Brown's vow to cut almost $6 billion from the budget if taxes don't pass, with public schools taking most of the hit. The threat hasn't budged voters like Anna Carson, a 60-year-old Republican from San Diego.

"They use education as the emotional hook," she said. "It's just baloney."

Tiffany Axene, a 32-year-old Republican from Riverside County, won't support the tax hikes either, even though she has four small children who could be bound for public schools. "I'm just tired of seeing people who make money get taxed and taxed," she said.

Younger Californians are some of Proposition 30's most consistent supporters, with 77% of registered voters ages 18 through 29 in favor. Support slides to 47% among respondents older than 64. Voters with children of school age or younger fall in between, supporting the measure 59% to 35%.

The outcome in November could be influenced by the 8% of respondents who are unsure how to vote — and by whether opponents of the proposal can muster the resources to sway them.

"The biggest question now is whether the opposition will have the money to get their argument heard," said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC and a former GOP political consultant.

I'll be voting against the initiative, since I've long held that the state's blue model of governance is unsustainable. If Prop. 30 fails it will force a round of major restructuring that could save the state billions in the long run, and that should be just the start of rethinking the out-of-control California big government boondoggle.

Ambassador Susan Rice Appeared on Five Sunday Talk Shows on September 16th to Claim Libya Attack Was 'Spontaneous'

Check out Stephen Hayes, at the Weekly Standard, "Permanent Spin":

For nine days, the Obama administration made a case that virtually everyone understood was untrue: that the killing of our ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, was a random, spontaneous act of individuals upset about an online video—an unpredictable attack on a well-protected compound that had nothing do to with the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.

These claims were wrong. Every one of them. But the White House pushed them hard.

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, appeared on five Sunday talk shows on September 16. A “hateful video” triggered a “spontaneous protest .  .  . outside of our consulate in Benghazi” that “spun from there into something much, much more violent,” she said on Face the Nation. “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”

On This Week, Rice said the consulate was well secured. “The security personnel that the State Department thought were required were in place,” she said, adding: “We had substantial presence with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function, and indeed there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney not only denied that the attacks had anything to do with the anniversary of 9/11 but scolded reporters who, citing the administration’s own pre-9/11 boasts about its security preparations for the anniversary, made the connection. “I think that you’re conveniently conflating two things,” Carney snapped, “which is the anniversary of 9/11 and the incidents that took place, which are under investigation.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Intelligence officials understood immediately that the attacks took place on 9/11 for a reason. The ambassador, in a country that faces a growing al Qaeda threat, had virtually no security. The two contractors killed in the attacks were not part of the ambassador’s security detail, and there were not, in fact, “many other colleagues” working security with them.

The nature of the attack itself, a four-hour battle that took place in two waves, indicated some level of planning. “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” Libyan president Mohammad el-Megarif told National Public Radio. When a reporter asked Senator Carl Levin, one of the most partisan Democrats in the upper chamber, if the attack was planned, Levin said it was. “I think there’s evidence of that. There’s been evidence of that,” he responded, adding: “The attack looked like it was planned and premeditated, sure.” Levin made his comments after a briefing from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

Representative Adam Smith, a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, agreed. “This was not just a mob that got out of hand. Mobs don’t come in and attack, guns blazing. I think that there is a growing consensus it was preplanned.” And according to CNN, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy “has said that the attack appeared to be planned because it was so extensive and because of the ‘proliferation’ of small and medium weapons at the scene.” Not only was the attack planned, it appears there was no protest at all. Citing eyewitnesses, CBS News reported late last week: “There was never an anti-American protest outside the consulate.”

So we are left with this: Four Americans were killed in a premeditated terrorist attack on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, and for more than a week the Obama administration misled the country about what happened.

This isn’t just a problem. It’s a scandal.

More at that top link.

And see AoSHQ, "Obama Administration Directs Active Cover-Up of Benghazi Terrorist Attack; Media Enables and Joins."

And especially, "Rep. Peter King Calls for Resignation of Ambassador Susan Rice."

And check back for more reporting on this story...

Pamela Geller's 'Savage' Ads Aren't Being Taken Down

Foreign Policy has the background, "NYC’s transit authority changes advertising standards in wake of anti-Islam ads."

But see Pamela, "ENEMEDIA SPINS MTA'S REFUSAL TO DROP CAUSE-RELATED ADS":

The New York Times has run a piece, and Hot Air is running with it as if it's accurate, claiming that the MTA has changed its guidelines to be able to prohibit my AFDI pro-freedom ads. I disagree with that interpretation. The New York Times piece is inaccurate, putting as negative a spin as they can on the MTA ruling, out of their hatred for freedom and zeal to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws. Hot Air has been very late to the party and has not been following the story at all, so I'm not surprised that they're slavishly following the Times' lead.

The fact is, the MTA doesn't mean that it will be enforcing the Sharia or adhering to the blasphemy laws under Islamic law. The enemedia is assuming that they will prohibit our ad, but it is not necessarily so. And if they do, we will certainly fight back. It's fairly safe to say that the MTA is referring to prohibiting ads that genuinely incite to violence, such as ads from Occupy Wall Street calling for people to get guns and shoot businessmen and police. It's the same as it was before. If they block us, we'll sue again.

More at the link.

And scroll down for all the hot coverage at Atlas Shrugs. She's changing the world over there.

The Audacity of Corruption

Via Accuracy in Media:

Mama Gorilla Kisses Her Newborn Baby at Jersey Zoo

Amazing:

Rush Limbaugh: Obama Regime Won't Send the FBI to Libya, 'It's a Harmful Campaign Issue...'

Via Freedom's Lighthouse:

Christina Aguilera: 'Your Body'

At London's Daily Mail, "Gyrating on the bed, promiscuity and bleeding pink glitter... feast your eyes on Christina Aguilera's new video Your Body."

BWHAHAHA!! Reviled Internet Troll Walter James Casper III Still Pestering Gay Activist Blogger Months After Being Dissed on Twitter

Damn, it's almost October and the reviled Internet troll and racist anti-Semitic hate-blogger Walter James Casper III, a.k.a. Repsac3, is still demonically hassling gay activist writer Evan Hurst.

@evanhurst Now that the issue's cooled & no1's looking, any chance of your sending me that disappeared TWO CfA post? repsac3blogs@gmail.com
— J. Casper (@repsac3) September 20, 2012

What an embarrassing spectacle. A true loser exposes his psychiatric illnesses on the web for the entire world to see. He's deserving of all the vicious contumely he's so persistently earned. Gawd, what a total asshole, "Hatesac3"

I wrote about this at the beginning of August, and Repsac's stalking of Hurst dates back to July. The sick f-ker just won't let it go. After a while you have to bring in law enforcement to get this criminal off your back. See, "Walter James Casper III, Hate-Blogger and Internet Stalker, Harasses Gay-Politics Activist Evan Hurst on Twitter":

This is why hate-blogger Walter James Casper III, a.k.a. Repsac3, is blocked from my blog --- and this is why the evil "Hatesac" has been exposed, repudiated, and blocked all over the right wing blogosphere. When Zilla put up a huge "roll call" of conservatives supporting me against workplace intimidation, Hatesac3 infiltrated her comments and was promptly banned. As I wrote at the time: "RACIST = REPSAC's a nut case. A raving hatemonger and lunatic."

Yes, a raving hatemonger, and ever more dangerously, a pathological Internet predator. Keep away from this stupid f-ker, especially if you're an ethnic minority, a woman, or a Jew. Repsac's been spouting an increasingly venomous number of attacks on people, defending, for example, Maureen Dowd's universally discredited "slithering" slurs on Jewish neocons at the New York Times. See, "Walter James Casper III: Jewish 'Neocons' Should 'Stop Whining' About Being Slurred as 'Puppet Masters' for Bush/Cheney War Cabal."

Contacting the authorities is the best bet to stop this guy from harassing you on the Internet. See, "Intent to Annoy and the Fascist Hate-Blogging Campaign of Walter James Casper III."

Repsac3 = Dangerous Racist, Anti-Jewish Internet Stalker and Criminal.

Again, just stay away from that deranged pile of human excrement. And block him, on Facebook, on Twitter, and in your blog comments. When he emails, save those to hand over to the police for investigation. Someone like this needs to be behind bars and I'll be on the case until that time when the evidence piles up and we can put this guy away for good.

A White House Cover-Up on Libya

From Terence Jeffrey, at the Washington Examiner, "What did the White House know about Libya, and when?":

Upon hearing there had been an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans had been killed there and that this murderous assault had been carried out on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a rational mind might be tempted to conclude that this had been a premeditated act of terror.

The Obama White House and State Department resisted the temptation.

On Sept. 12, the day after the attack, White House press secretary Jay Carney was asked whether "the attack in Benghazi was planned and premeditated." "It's too early for us to make that judgment," Carney said.

The next day, Sept. 13, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland subtly pointed to a YouTube video as possibly creating a motivation for the attack. Asked "whether the Benghazi attack was purely spontaneous or was premeditated by militants," Nuland replied, "[W]e are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated, whether they had any external contacts, whether there was any link, until we have a chance to investigate along with the Libyans ... [O]bviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating."

There's more at the link, but if you have time, spend a few minutes with the video from the State Department press conference cited by Jeffrey. The passage mentioned is at about 13:40 minutes, but Nuland repeats the "cautious" line at numerous points and she's heavily stonewalling throughout. Interestingly, the reporters there --- and I don't recognize any of them --- are asking some excellent questions, on security, on possible motivations and terrorist coordination, and so forth. It's fascinating given that sources have been reporting all week that the administration knew within hours that this was a terrorist attack. Nuland was acting in political crisis mode. She's probably lying, and she was certainly covering for her boss, Hillary Clinton, and the White House.

RELATED: At AoSHQ, "Obama Administration Scrubs State Department Memo Denying Threat of 9/11 Terrorism From Internet."

Dorothy Rabinowitz Reviews 'Homeland'

The new season starts Sunday.

Rep. Allen West Brutally Slams Opponent Patrick Murphy

Via Legal Insurrection:

Rep. Peter King Calls for Resignation of Ambassador Susan Rice

At Twitchy, "Rep. Pete King calls for Ambassador Rice to resign; John Kerry defends, advises ‘deep breath’."